🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,